Switched-on reading
Do you believe everything you read? Or hear?
Of course not.
Many myths start as stories in the media. All it takes is one story with an angle which generates fear or outrage – mentioning babies, pregnancy or cancer usually does the trick – and the message can “go viral” around online news sources, blogs and websites. All parroting the same message and amplifying the uncertainty.
It is important to be able to see through the sensation and work out for yourself whether the issue is worth your concern – or is simply a ‘beat up’.
What do experts say about how chemical health risks are portrayed (in the USA)? [1]
The media’s role
The media can have a difficult job when reporting on chemical issues. The vast and complex fields of science, medicine, toxicology and chemical regulations are all relevant to the understanding of chemical risks, so that even someone who has expertise in one aspect of chemicals may not know much about another.
It is even harder for journalists, who most likely do not have the above expertise, and who are required to translate the findings of a scientific study into a short, attention-grabbing TV broadcast or newspaper article. This can lead to oversimplification, and often misleading reporting.
And don’t forget that bad news sells. Stories with an angle make for more interesting reading. In some cases, finding an angle means exaggerating, lopsided reporting, omitting information, and sensationalising.
There is evidence of some scepticism in the Australian public over reporting on chemical risks:
“Everything causes cancer these days[2], it’s not safe to leave your house.”[3]
“I become increasingly sceptical of these headline-grabbing academic studies about the alleged health risks of everyday consumer products… If all of these continuous and no doubt research grant-attracting reports were taken seriously our stress levels would soar and that certainly would be a life-threatening risk. Further, if they are true, why are we living ever-increasing lifespans?”[4]
It is vital the media recognise the role of Australia's strong, independent, science-based system of public health and environmental regulation.
Balance is also essential. Media stories which only quote claims from anti-chemical commentators fail the test of balanced reporting and need to be read with scepticism. A balanced portrayal of the hazards and risks of consumer products would avoid generating unwarranted alarm in the community.
Some tips when reading a media story
Of course not.
Many myths start as stories in the media. All it takes is one story with an angle which generates fear or outrage – mentioning babies, pregnancy or cancer usually does the trick – and the message can “go viral” around online news sources, blogs and websites. All parroting the same message and amplifying the uncertainty.
It is important to be able to see through the sensation and work out for yourself whether the issue is worth your concern – or is simply a ‘beat up’.
What do experts say about how chemical health risks are portrayed (in the USA)? [1]
- The vast majority (average ~86%) believe that media outlets (TV, papers and magazines) and environmental groups OVERSTATE chemical risks.
- In addition, the vast majority (over 90%) rated the media’s reporting of chemical risks as “POOR”.
- In contrast, a substantial portion of experts (~40%) believed industry group portrayals to be ACCURATE, with a slight majority (~60%) believing that industry groups UNDERSTATE chemical risks.
The media’s role
The media can have a difficult job when reporting on chemical issues. The vast and complex fields of science, medicine, toxicology and chemical regulations are all relevant to the understanding of chemical risks, so that even someone who has expertise in one aspect of chemicals may not know much about another.
It is even harder for journalists, who most likely do not have the above expertise, and who are required to translate the findings of a scientific study into a short, attention-grabbing TV broadcast or newspaper article. This can lead to oversimplification, and often misleading reporting.
And don’t forget that bad news sells. Stories with an angle make for more interesting reading. In some cases, finding an angle means exaggerating, lopsided reporting, omitting information, and sensationalising.
There is evidence of some scepticism in the Australian public over reporting on chemical risks:
“Everything causes cancer these days[2], it’s not safe to leave your house.”[3]
“I become increasingly sceptical of these headline-grabbing academic studies about the alleged health risks of everyday consumer products… If all of these continuous and no doubt research grant-attracting reports were taken seriously our stress levels would soar and that certainly would be a life-threatening risk. Further, if they are true, why are we living ever-increasing lifespans?”[4]
It is vital the media recognise the role of Australia's strong, independent, science-based system of public health and environmental regulation.
Balance is also essential. Media stories which only quote claims from anti-chemical commentators fail the test of balanced reporting and need to be read with scepticism. A balanced portrayal of the hazards and risks of consumer products would avoid generating unwarranted alarm in the community.
Some tips when reading a media story
|
Ask yourself, does the story…
…use neutral language? …present multiple experts’ viewpoints for a balanced view? …provide a comprehensive summary of the background and context? …report on a peer-reviewed study? …report the actual findings of a scientific study? …provide context for any reported statistics? |
Or does it…
…use highly emotive language? Think “timebombs” and “cocktails” …present limited/non-expert viewpoints? …give limited context, or present results from just one scientific study? …report on a self-published study, or even worse, contain opinion without evidence? …exaggerate or misrepresent the findings of the study?* …provide statistics without context |
*For example: A scientific study reported a link between the anogential index[5] in baby boys and the levels of phthalate metabolites (break-down products) in the mother’s urine before birth. This study was translated by media as “Common chemical may cause defects in baby boys”, alleging smaller genitals, improperly descended testicles and infertility being caused by phthalates, when the original study made no such claims.[6]
Beware…
…phrases such as “associated with” or “linked to”. For example “chemicals associated with hormone disruption” does not mean that a connection has been established between the chemicals and hormone disruption.
…the phrase “found in”. Just because a substance is present, whether in a product or in the human body, doesn’t mean that it has an adverse effect. There are many factors that need to be considered.
…statistics without context. Make sure that there is context provided for any statistics that are reported. For example, if it is reported that cancer is increasing, does the reporter take into consideration that the population is ageing and cancer is more common in older people?
…comparisons of humans and animals! Remember that animal studies in which administration of high doses of a substance cause adverse effects does not necessarily mean that humans will show a similar adverse effect when metabolising very low doses of the same substance.
Online ‘experts’
We have more information at our fingertips, thanks to the internet, than ever before. The internet also provides an opportunity for anyone to post information or broadcast their opinion – no matter how biased or ill-informed. There are few controls over what is published, and so no guarantee that the information out there is accurate and unbiased, or even current.
So if something is published online, it is important to do some investigating and critical thinking. Don’t just rely on a professional website look – who is behind what you are reading? Do they have an agenda? Could they be misinformed, or misunderstand an issue? For example, although having children entitles parents to make decisions on their behalf, it does not suddenly qualify parents as experts on chemicals and their risks.
Some tips when reading online
Beware…
…phrases such as “associated with” or “linked to”. For example “chemicals associated with hormone disruption” does not mean that a connection has been established between the chemicals and hormone disruption.
…the phrase “found in”. Just because a substance is present, whether in a product or in the human body, doesn’t mean that it has an adverse effect. There are many factors that need to be considered.
…statistics without context. Make sure that there is context provided for any statistics that are reported. For example, if it is reported that cancer is increasing, does the reporter take into consideration that the population is ageing and cancer is more common in older people?
…comparisons of humans and animals! Remember that animal studies in which administration of high doses of a substance cause adverse effects does not necessarily mean that humans will show a similar adverse effect when metabolising very low doses of the same substance.
Online ‘experts’
We have more information at our fingertips, thanks to the internet, than ever before. The internet also provides an opportunity for anyone to post information or broadcast their opinion – no matter how biased or ill-informed. There are few controls over what is published, and so no guarantee that the information out there is accurate and unbiased, or even current.
So if something is published online, it is important to do some investigating and critical thinking. Don’t just rely on a professional website look – who is behind what you are reading? Do they have an agenda? Could they be misinformed, or misunderstand an issue? For example, although having children entitles parents to make decisions on their behalf, it does not suddenly qualify parents as experts on chemicals and their risks.
Some tips when reading online
|
Ask yourself, does the online source…
…identify the author and give their credentials? …have the backing of a legitimate and trustworthy organisation? …appear to be neutral, balanced and unbiased? …back up claims with reliable evidence and sources? …contain believable information that can be verified via other reliable sources? …contain information and links that are up to date? |
Or does it…
…provide no identification or no credentials?* …have no affiliation with a reputable organisation? …try to persuade, containing unbalanced views and revealing an underlying bias – e.g. political, ideological or commercial? …make unvalidated claims that appear to be opinion only? …contain claims that appear far-fetched and that are not supported by other reliable sources? …contain outdated or undated information? |
*For example, Wikipedia is written and edited by anonymous authors, making it “the source where you can be an authority even if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about"[7]
Sources
[1] Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health & Risk Communication, 2009, “Are Chemicals Killing Us?" www.rmsunscreen.com/pdf/2009%20Toxicologist%20Survey.pdf
[2] Just out of interest, here are some of the more bizarre reported “causes” of cancer: Wearing a bra, too much sex, air travel, mobile phones…and there are many more! Some cancer myths are addressed in this website.
[3] J.S. from Orange, January 12, 2009, “Let’s have the truth on alcohol’s effects”, The Daily Telegraph.
[4] John Kidd, Brisbane. January 12, 2009, “Let’s have the truth on alcohol’s effects”, The Daily Telegraph.
[5] Distance from anus to base of the penis, divided by weight
[6] Goldin, R. 2005, “Media claims phthalates (might) cause genital defects”, STATS
[7] Steve Colbert, referred to at http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/can-online-health-information-be.html
Sources
[1] Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health & Risk Communication, 2009, “Are Chemicals Killing Us?" www.rmsunscreen.com/pdf/2009%20Toxicologist%20Survey.pdf
[2] Just out of interest, here are some of the more bizarre reported “causes” of cancer: Wearing a bra, too much sex, air travel, mobile phones…and there are many more! Some cancer myths are addressed in this website.
[3] J.S. from Orange, January 12, 2009, “Let’s have the truth on alcohol’s effects”, The Daily Telegraph.
[4] John Kidd, Brisbane. January 12, 2009, “Let’s have the truth on alcohol’s effects”, The Daily Telegraph.
[5] Distance from anus to base of the penis, divided by weight
[6] Goldin, R. 2005, “Media claims phthalates (might) cause genital defects”, STATS
[7] Steve Colbert, referred to at http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/can-online-health-information-be.html